Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LTC8K6]

But the precedent does exist, and there have been tracks photographed with this feature.

No sasquatch tracks have been photographed with any features that cannot be made by your own foot.

 

[Hellbound]

Now, if I went on any board and used that as an excuse - I would expect to be torn to shreds. That is not a valid excuse. As someone who is skeptical of anything I can not see with my own eyes - I say "Show me the bigbird". Otherwise, your chasing legends the same as me.

No, I'm chasing nothing. Scientists are trying to determine if the IBW still exists in parts of Arkansas.

They are not trying to redefine the characeristics and habits of the IBW based on anecdotal, contradictory "sightings" and inconclusive evidence. And they haven't declared the IBW to exist there, just that there's a possibility.

Then you go on to say:



Back atcha. They have no more proof than I have - so what makes their cause more noble or necessary than what I am doing? They have no more proof this animal exists than I do a bigfoot is out there - but they are searching none the less, and they should be commended for that search, yet you would call me nuts - and I have about as much info for my search as they do.

And if they are still searching after 40 years, with the only new evidence being contradictory accounts and widely-varying "footprints", then I'll say they're wasting their time, as well. You continually ignore the differences. Not to mentiont hat the bigfoot evidence being put out now is not of the "do they exist" type, but of the "this is what they do" type. Meldrum describes their anatomy, other have detailed mating and feeding habits, etc. No one is still at the "does it exist" stage.

You sound like an IBW researcher - or someone who has profited off the tourism increase in Arkansas The IBW and that fuzzy footage sure has done tremendous things for tourism (from what I hear).

Nice bit of poisoning the well. I have nothing to do with tourism or the IBW. I work for an insurance company doing computer maintenance. I am not (unlike some) directly involved with either Bigfoot research or the IBW. I am, however, someone with enough knowledge to seperate good research from bad.

We can go back and forth about this until one of these animals is discovered.. But the truth of this is simply - you are basing your opinion on information that is incomplete.

What opinion? Let me stae this clearly:

CAN YOU PLEASE STOP ASSIGNING OPINIONS TO ME THAT I HAVE NOT EXPRESSED JUST SO YOU CAN FEEL AS IF YOU HAVE AN ARGUMENT!

I have expressed an opnion on Bigfoot (so unlikely as to be discounted in the absence of real evidence) and BF research (a lot of wishful thinking, post hoc rationalization, and made-up details). It's a waste of time and resources. I have, nowhere, expressed my opinion of whether the IBW exists (I doubt it does, actually), but I have expressed an opinion of the research (enough there to make some searching reasonable, bnut not 40 years worth).

You'd get nicer responses if you didn't continually misrepresent the positions of those who disagree with you in order to make simplistic arguments.

There is no body of an IBW, there is no more footage..No feathers nothing. Yet you will strongly defend the reason for that research - yet insult me for the research I do with no more information than they have.

Wrong, again. They have more information: they KNOW what they are looking for, for one.

You also have more information of a different type: ALL the available evidence is anecdotal, with nothing verifiable in the entire history of looking for Bigfoot. NO ONE has enough information to determine what a Bigfoot should look like, act like, eat, smell like, or sound like. They're stumbling around in the woods looking for a jabberwock, with about as much reason.

I find that a bit funny.

Well, you can put me down as anything you like - your opinion of me personally really makes no difference, as you do not know me. It does say a lot about you.. You are making decisions before having all the available information - in this example it would be me. You don't know me or anything about me, yet you have decided in a few posts I am deceitful - I think you should actually take the time to know someone before making a statement like that - you are making a judgment about a subject you have little to no real information on.

I'm making that statement on the basis of several facts:

1. You continually misrepresent what I say.

2. After having the obvious differences in available evidence between the IBW and Bigfoot pointed out you continually fail to address them and claim they don't exist.

3. You persist in these things after your error has been pointed out to you.

Thats not really making an informed decision based on actual knowledge. A decision based on emotion is not an informed or educated decision.

I'm basing that on what you've written here. Please show me where I'm wrong.

 

[Hellbound]

By the way, how many years had people been discussing the IBW in Arkansas before that video?? I know its been more than a couple years.

So, all those people were just crazy too - LMAO.. Did you apologize to those witnesses? LOL. Yes, it is two different animals, but Im pretty sure the witnesses were treated the same way. "There is no way the IBW was spotted in your neck of the woods, its been extinct for years".. LOL.

Taadaaaa

No, because none of them ever INSISTED that the IBW was real because they had a second-cousin who though they saw one driving a Mac truck.

Take your own advice and quit making an argument based on emotion. And in any case, there's STILL no reason for me to apologize to anyone, because there's still no proof that the IBW exists today. You seem to be confusing things again, not that this is suprising.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, it would be difficult for you to reproduce such flat, lifeless, tracks with your real live foot...

http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/bluff_creek_bigfoot.html

 

[Hellbound]

BIGFOOT Evidence:

1. Less than a minute of video footage, very unclear. Cannot be verified to be film of an actual creature, rather than a person in a suit. Hoax has not been ruled out to any reasonable degree, and video was shot by a known hoaxer with a vested interest. No standard to comnpare film to to assist in determining validity (no one knows what Bigfoot is supposed to look like in detail).
2. No evidence for any similar species ever existing.
3. Partial match species has no evidence of ever existing in North Amercia; does not match witness accounts or film.
4. No physical evidence found after 40+ years of searching.
5. Contradictory and widely varying eye-witness accounts. No standard or confirmed sighting to compare accounts to for validity. Variations in eye-witness accounts have a tendency to be explained away by bigfoot "researchers".
6. No standard habitat, sightings range across North America, to Tibet and other countries as well, across multiple climates and terrains.
7. Wide variation in tracks found: number of toes, size, placement of toes, mid-tarsal break or no break, opposable toe or not, length of toes, etc. No standard track to compare to (no confirmed bigfoot track exists to determine if others are real or not).
8. Tracks left with no physical evidence...no skin cells, hair, feces, saliva, etc. Little effort put into obtaining physical samples of any sort.

IBW Evidence:
1. Short, unclear video image. Image matches what is known of IBW characteristics, making the video suggestive. Hoax is possible, but motives would be unclear. Not ruled out to be mistake/hoax.
2. Evidence abounds that the species did exist at one time, exactly as appearing in the video (to the degree that can be determined).
3. Not only did the species exist, it also existed in exactly the area it was allegedly seen in recently.
4. No distinctive physical evidence found, but only small studies are being done so far and that only for a few years. Birds would leave fewer and harder to find tracks than large bipedal primates, so this is not unlikely. Not supportive, either.
5. Few eye-witness accounts, but those agree within a reasonable level. Eye-witness accounts can be compared to known features of the animal, recorded when the animal existed, to assit in determining validity.
6. Sighting area is the creatures natural habitat, so would be a reasonable place for the creature to exist, if it were still alive.
7. Few bits of evidence found, but no contradictions so far, either. If found, evidence can be compared to known features, as recorded when the bird still existed.
8. Little tracks or other bits found, so no oppurtunities yet for physical evidence. Work is geared towards collecting this confirming evidence (if it exists), with various traps and lures to obtain samples.

 

[Correa Neto]

Melissa, just two observations...

Meldrum based his conclusion on the mid-tarsal breaks on a data set composed by some footprint casts that have a certain morphology. Here are the problems I see regarding this issue:
- Some of the footprints are suspected of being a hoax (Patty's); others as the result of bear overstepping.
- Human feet (even when wearing boots or rigid fakefeet) can produce footprints that are very similar -if not identical- to the alleged bigfoot tracks with mid-tarsal breaks.
- Many casts show no sign of a mid-tarsal break.
- The feet of real primates with mid-tarsal breaks have opposing big toes; their morphology is very different from the human-looking feet that can be inferred from the "classic" alleged bigfoot tracks.
- Articulated feet are less efficient than rigid feet for a fully-bipedal primate adapted to walk long distances; the extra articulation creates loss of energy and extra wear point.

Regarding Gigantopithecus being bigfoot.. Yes, they were big apes about the right size, but as far as we know, they can be at best a template for the myth, for the following reasons:
- Gigantopithecus known distribution area was restricted to southern China and Vietnam, areas whose climate and vegetations are very different from the regions the species would have to "cross" to reach North America; these areas also have climate and vegetation that are different from whats supposed to be bigfoot prime habitat (PNW).
- Gigantopithecus, as far as we know, were very different from Patty and most bigfoot renderings; their diet was also different from supposed bigfoot menu.
- There are no evidence for Gigantopithecus younger than 200Ky or 100Ky ago.

If you are interested, you can find more details at the original discussions through the search function. I'm feeling kinda lazy for link-digging these days...

 

[RayG]

Gigantopithecus, as far as we know, were very different from Patty and most bigfoot renderings; their diet was also different from supposed bigfoot menu.

Yeah, the physical descriptions of bigfoot just don't seem to mesh very well with those of Giganto. Bigfoot is described as an upright, arm-swinging critter, able to leap fallen trees, easily step over fences, purse cars at high speed, and scale steep embankments.

Gigantopithecus on the other hand, sounds like a knuckle-walking, slow to move, orang-like creature, that sat around consuming huge quantities of grasses, fruit and bamboo.

RayG

 

[bf2006]

Well, just to complicate things further, Bob Heironimus makes a third appearance on the XZone this Thursday night at Midnight Eastern. http://www.xzoneradio.com

 

[kitakaze]

Myth Busting vs Myth Perpetuating.

Why is it that the 14 seconds of footage for Cornell University so much better information on the Ivory Billed Woodpecker and various other sightings - than the information I as a bigfoot researcher receive? There is no difference in my methods and theirs - other than their work is accepted because of 14 seconds of fuzzy footage (thats worse than the patterson film) and the Ivory Billed was known to exist at one point. But they are not employing methods any different than what bigfoot researchers use every time they go into the field. (snip)

Oh, and the Ivory Billed hunters have had no better luck than we have had. So it seems scientists in the field cant find something a lucky person with a camera could find. So, does that mean the Ivory Billed Woodpecker is truly extint? Who knows, until science finds one living.

There is no more proof that the IBW woodpecker exists today - than there is of a bigfoot.

They have no more proof than I have - so what makes their cause more noble or necessary than what I am doing? They have no more proof this animal exists than I do a bigfoot is out there - but they are searching none the less, and they should be commended for that search, yet you would call me nuts - and I have about as much info for my search as they do.

Very important topic in shedding light onto bigfoot myth perpetuation.

Let's start with some links:

Pseudologic. Ben Radford and the TBRC on the IBW.

(A little off-focus but a bit of a starting point with discussion from Melissa's associated organization.)

Wikipedia entry on the Ivory billed woodpecker.

(Absolute MUST read. Melissa, you specifically need to take the time for this before continuing any conversation anywhere pertaining to BF/IBW search and evidence.)

The Cornell Lab of Orninthology- The Search for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker

Texas Bigfoot Research Center- Operation Thicket Probe II: Big Thicket National Preserve.

(Melissa invites comparison. Let's compare.)

Ivory billed woodpecker sought in Big Thicket National Preserve.

(Just for some perspective.)

More to come...

For now, I'll just say that this is a perfect example of bigfoot proponents ignorantly (I'm not trying to be insulting but that's what it is) perpetuating the bigfoot myth by trying in the Credibility Quest to draw comparisons to valid research. I won't bother rehashing the points that Huntsman has already made but I will say to Melissa that truly only in ignorance or worse can one assert that the comparison is a matter of opinion. I think what the responsible thing to do for proponents seeking validity for their search is to in this case take it upon themselves to be first and forthright in illustrating the logically fallacy of BF/IBW search and evidence comparisons.

 

[kitakaze]

Aaaaaiieeee!!! pner off the port bow!

Happy birthday, tube!

 

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wisely wrote:

...and in 40 years you have you have nothing....absolutely...NOTHING to corroborate your and the rest of Bigfoot Nation's contention that this is in fact a real flesh and blood hairy Biped of Unusual Heighth.

We the less fanciful beings of earth have countless other video which obviously depict schmoes in suits along with a list as long as my arm of Class A sightings (yeah right) that happen on the fringe of suburbia in the vast unexplored wilds of such exotic,remote locales as Indiana,Kansas and Ohio,and countless examples of how Roge and Gimlin contradicted each other at damn near every oppurtunity.

Not to mention the fact that time is on the side of skeptics...it has been 40 years and you have absolutely...BUPKIS!!!

You have exactly ONE...single...solitary ambiguous to the nth degree film made by a con man on his very first attempt to go out a film a Bigfeetsus.

Oh and you also have ,folders and folders of sighting reports, probably about 10,000 or so feetprints casts,countless hoaxes,loads of Blobsquatches....some bison hair,a huge pothole in the mud, Biscardi...Freeman...that nutty broad in Tennessee who has a group of Bigfeetsuses who borrow sugar from her...and so on and so on...and so on...

This is why Bigfoot Nation clings to the Con Man's Flick so tightly....without it they basically have a giant heaping pile of....NOT FREEKING MUCH!!!

And you have not a thought in your head other than "Where's the Proof....got a body?"

You should be PROUD, Mad Hom. You're a ranting bag-of-wind.

Please........continue...

 

[LTC8K6]

TBRC couldn't find any footprints from this very heavy and tall biped that was right there next to them? Reading the account, it seems like they didn't bother to look for footprints, even though they knew right where the thing was standing and right where it walked.

I wonder if I should mention that blocking out the view of an 8 foot tall post does not mean the creature was 8+ feet tall...?

 

[kitakaze]

And you have not a thought in your head other than "Where's the Proof....got a body?"

You should be PROUD, Mad Hom. You're a ranting bag-of-wind.

Please........continue...

What's wrong with that question, Sweaty? I mean, forget reliable evidence, why don't we have proof of these madly varying, continent roaming creatures?

http://penn.freeservers.com/bigfootmaps/

Rare and remote?

 

[Geno]

Comparison of BobH and BobH?

Here is a better comparison. Forget the head but check out the length of the arms, the size of the butt, the legs and the height of the shoulders. The suit BobH is wearing is what Philip Morris made to recreate the film for NG. I will see if I can post the head of the costume that Morris made for this also.

The breast on his suit also looks pretty similar.

 

[mangler]

Not to change the subject, but I gonna.


So I borrowed an older copy of the pgf from someone yesterday so I could get the full frame version for a project I have been wanting to do for quite sometime. As I stated to that person I simply want to do a photo/comp and/or illustration of the entire scene from the perspective of frame 352, around a 180 degree view. No biggy just wanted something to hang on my wall.


Well it seems that there is quite a bit of information on this cut that is not included on the optically enhanced version of Greens. Sure would be nice to know how many times this thing went to an optical printer.


Here is one frame comparison that WP might find amusing thou I doubt he will be surprised. Forgive me if you posted this one William, you pulled the pic before I actually saw it.


"Yep. Here is a better shot of what he and Davis are calling a Patty footprint. To me it sure looks like some debris wood with shadows. That roundish dark spot in the lower right is a footprint? Or is it the thing next to it that looks like a wah-wah pedal?" William Parcher


Back to your regular scheduled program.



m

 

[Mad Hom]

Mad Hom wisely wrote:




And you have not a thought in your head other than "Where's the Proof....got a body?"

You should be PROUD, Mad Hom. You're a ranting bag-of-wind.

Please........continue...

Yes Sweaty...after 40 years of....goofing around in the woods.....listening to people's spooky stories......wasting perfectly good plaster....and blatantly just making things up....it has gotten to the point....where Bigfoot Nation needs to put up.....or shutup....so..

Where's the proof?....Got a body?

 

[Melissa]

Melissa, just two observations...

Once again Correa Neto, you bring up valid arguments and ones I can not deny are an issue. But, are you saying we should always find tracks with a midtarsal break? I would have to disagree, as I believe it would depend on the soil, amount of organic matter (leaves etc) and the moisture content of that soil. I am not disputing the midtarsal break is at issue - but I am saying it is something worth considering if this is in fact a feature found within primates.

Regarding Gigantopithecus being bigfoot.. Yes, they were big apes about the right size, but as far as we know, they can be at best a template for the myth, for the following reasons:
- Gigantopithecus known distribution area was restricted to southern China and Vietnam, areas whose climate and vegetations are very different from the regions the species would have to "cross" to reach North America; these areas also have climate and vegetation that are different from whats supposed to be bigfoot prime habitat (PNW).
- Gigantopithecus, as far as we know, were very different from Patty and most bigfoot renderings; their diet was also different from supposed bigfoot menu.
- There are no evidence for Gigantopithecus younger than 200Ky or 100Ky ago.

If you are interested, you can find more details at the original discussions through the search function. I'm feeling kinda lazy for link-digging these days...

I dont think anyone knows with 100% accuracy just how far (or if) Gigantopithecus may have migrated. Could this animal have adapted to the climate? I see many animals that live in various climates doing very well because of adaptation. This does change things like size of that animal, take for instance Deer - they are here in Texas and doing well, as well as the Northern States, their size is smaller in Texas but I would think thats an adaptation to climate and food supplies. I could be wrong, Im not a wildlife biologist. So, I really dont think its a big stretch to think IF Giganto moved in a migration it may have "downsized" to fit the environment. That is of course - IF..

But, there are scientists looking into whether Giganto was also in Thailand, India and possibly other locations.

Im not saying that Gigantopithecus is in fact what we now call bigfoot, but again the precedent is there for a large ape capable of reaching the size of a bigfoot. Just something worth looking into.

I do enjoy our discussions Correa Neto - thank you.

 

[Melissa]

TBRC couldn't find any footprints from this very heavy and tall biped that was right there next to them? Reading the account, it seems like they didn't bother to look for footprints, even though they knew right where the thing was standing and right where it walked.

I wonder if I should mention that blocking out the view of an 8 foot tall post does not mean the creature was 8+ feet tall...?

LTC, have you ever been in the Big Thicket of Texas? When I was there during this time, the ground was solid - nothing (unless it stepped in a mud hole) would have left an impression - period. I personally think it says more that we didn't claim to have found a track - isn't that what you asked for? You said in an earlier post we needed to separate ourselves from the "believers" and research - honestly. Well, thats what we are doing. Give us a little credit for not being dishonest by saying we had something we didn't.

I'm not sure which encounter your talking about. I am glad you read the report, but could you be more specific - I was not apart of the night time operation though - just the day time one. That I can speak to as I have first hand knowledge.

 

[Melissa]

Huntsman, I think you need a nap. Good lord, calm down your gonna have a stroke. Kitakazee, show me the body of an Ivory Billed Woodpecker, and I will then believe the animal exists - and is no longer extinct.

Why would you ask me to apply thoughts that are contrary to what I apply to the same thoughts I use in bigfoot research? I don't understand that at all. It seems to be accepted to simply believe one thing is true, with no evidence (body) yet another issue is a complete fabrication of the imagination. I am truly amazed at what some people will demand for one situation and not another. I demand the same proof from anyone who says they have discovered an animal that was either thought to be extinct or does not exist. Show me the body, and I will applaud the researchers involved. Give me DNA evidence, something substantial. A photo wont do it for me in bigfoot research or anything else.

 

[LTC8K6]

I personally think it says more that we didn't claim to have found a track - isn't that what you asked for?

They did claim to find 2 tracks, though. Just no mention of any where they saw the beastie that night.

In fact, they appear to have followed the common bizarre pattern of actually seeing bigfoot, or signs of it's immediate presence, and then leaving the area, rather than following up.

A pattern I have complained about for a long time with bigfoot hunting trips, btw.

I first noticed it while reading up on the BFRO Skookum cast expedition.